life" as a religious value, replacing it with the secular term, "quality of life." Doyle does not stop here, however. She points out that the secular humanist view is just as religious as the views of any recognized religion. In fact, the Supreme Court recognized secular humanism as a religion protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. The "quality-of-life ethic," therefore, is a "religious belief of secular humanism" (p. 464). According to this ethic, a person who does not enjoy a certain quality of life becomes a "non-person," and therefore we can kill this non-person without actually committing murder. Words, however, do not change reality. Doyle's essay turns to quickly to a listing of the results of this policy, without further exploration of the issue of defining terms. Doyle's argument would be strengthened if she reminded the reader that the Nazis used terms such as the final solution" to disguise their acts of murder against the Jewish people during World War II. Instead, she goes back to the glowing phrases of the Constitution, which guarantee liberty and justice for all persons, even for defective persons, old persons, ill persons, and injured persons. All of these arguments depend on terms which must be defined. Definition is everything. The main thing, however, is that somebody is killing somebody else, and that is wrong. Therefore, the definition always means that somebody is doing something that is wrong. Works CitedBernards, Neal, Ed. (1989). Euthanasia: Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints Series, Series Eds. David L. Bender and Bruno Leone. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press.Doyle, Eileen. "Consequences of Imposing the Quality-of-Life Ethic." Bernards pp. 463-466.Johnson, Dana E. "Euthanasia Should Not Be Based Based on Economic Factors." Bernards, pp. 132-137. Leo, John. "Cozy Little homicides." Bernards pp. 461-463.Maguire, Daniel C. "Death by Choice." Bernards pp. 447-452.Neff,...
